Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00348)

Huh? You talk to much. Attack is always a good defense. Why don't you 
practice what you preach? I heard you say you were "not a theosophist." So, 
why are you here? Is it just to tell us how wise you are? I can't wait to 
hear. :-)

LHM


In a message dated 12/10/02 4:07:33 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

>Hi Terri. If you don't like my behavior, you need to give a few examples
>from my emails. If you cannot do this, if you are too lazy or whatever,
>then you are just pouring from the empty into the void. Maybe if you stick
>more to ideas and don't leave a lot of drivel, such as ten messages in
>one day with basically no content (though I did like the pineapple message),
>these harsh responses from Wry will not be as forthcoming in the future.
>You have little sense of proportion. It looks like you haven't been on
>this list since last May, and only then for a few days, when you also left
>a spate of messages. If you just stick to ideas, everything will be o.k.
>
>Did you ever hear of enquiry? I will enquire with anyone. as that is a
>cleansing and exciting experience. You are not responding to some of my
>points. What do you think about what I responded to you about holding up
>mirrors? This isn't a contest about who is right. Maybe I am wrong, and
>I can learn something from you, which would be joyful. For example, do
>you really think that you can hold up a mirror and someone will learn 
something
>essential in such a way that it changes an inner dynamic that is intricately
>complex and based on a movement away from pain toward pleasure? Have you
>been successful with this? Can you give some examples? As previously stated,
>I have tried this, as have most people, many times. (I am not always harsh
>and can be very gentle at holding up a mirror or anything else, though
>I acknowledge I have been cutting grease on here.) And there is another
>problem about holding up mirrors besides building up resistance: the mirror
>holder is subjective. It is a form of selection ( i.e.analysis), which
>is based on the conditioned mind, and there is always a distortion, as,
>at the very least, the mirror holder is selecting which details, or even
>which mode, of the person to reflect, but usually it is much, much murkier
>than this.
>
>Your talk of sleeping and waking is silly. This is the problem with the
>work of P.D. Ouspensky and the cheap, fourth-way groups that have sprung
>up out of his over-intellectualization of Gurdjieff's ideas. When you sign
>your message "dream on," this implies that you yourself are not dreaming.
>I deliberately chose to create a certain affect when I made my messages
>of the last few days. It was intentional, and I continue to think it was
>good. This does not mean I was "asleep" or "awake," which is vague, very
>subjective terminology. Do you understand?
>
>It is hard to sort it all out, but if we stick to ideas, there is a better
>chance of doing so then if we mechanically small talk. Would you not agree?
>It is a matter of discrimination, telling the difference between one thing
>and another and then breaking these two things apart and combining them
>with other sets and designing. To understand how to do this would be wisdom.
>When (if) you ever wake up, you will be breaking things apart, not lumping
>things together. Everything is already glued together. Do you understand
>this, Terrie? And how do we know how and what to break apart? It is by
>impartially studying the whole with a focus on oneself as an object. In
>this way what is upside down can be turned right-side up. But if a part
>of your "self", as you have called it, studies yourself, it is subjective,
>and the whole endeavor, no matter how well intended, is a waste, though
>maybe someone who has the right kind of knowledge can grow a rose out of
>this smelly medium .
>
>This is not the office or a cocktail party or a family gathering with Aunt
>Joan and Uncle Jeb and their various and sundry offspring. It is not a
>stage on which to play cartoon characters and pretend it is a form of 
conscious
>acting. It is an email group to discuss theosophy, and this is an appropriate
>venue to break things apart and try to create a certain atmosphere. I believe
>we all should be doing this. If you do not like my work, show me a better
>way to do things in such a manner that I can understand. .At least you
>have been helping me make some good messages out here, so, in the future,
>I will consider you on my team. Wry